There are many parts of this story that could be highlighted, but I'll focus on the "accused" graphic. The media's inconsistent use of "accused" and "allegedly" has been appalling, and it's a generations-long practice. The disfavored are guilty until proven innocent, while the favored are innocent even after proven guilty.
Unfortunately, you are right on all accounts. As loathsome as Jacob Lang is, he was the intended victim (and the poor goat he brought along), the terrorists did not bring the bombs "to the Gracie mansion" but for the protesters outside, and the news outlets failed when put in the uncomfortable fact that Lang was a target, and two young Americans were well... hateful bigots and terrorists. I can only assume in the coming weeks their hateful acts will softened by editorials about "discrimination" and being "marginalized" even these two terrorists come from very affluent families. The ONE real name I want to know is of that brave NYPD officer. Who is he? He deserves a medal!
Spot on. As per usual the NYT, with all the subtly of a mallet to the head, editorializes in the guise of news reporting. It's hard to feel sorry for NYC, they get what they voted for.
One can almost sympathize with the New York Times for hedging. They’re going to have to live with this for four years and they’re just waking up to it.
But who are articles written such mendaciously for? My suspicion it that it's not merely the public, many of whom are totally aware of the lying going on.
Rather they are written in no small part for the politics and conscious of the reporters themselves attempting to reconcile what they know to be true and what they want to be true.
Haha no. I call my newsletter the Radicalist because I tend to focus on radical (as in extremist rather than leftist revolutionary) movements and ideologies.
This is a wildly misleading portayal of Mamdani's response to the attempted bombings. He clearly and unambiguously condemned them, and commended the nypd officers who quickly arrested them. You can hear for yourself everything Mr. Volodzko left out of this article:
Two radical Muslims carried out an Islamist terrorist attack in an attempt to slaughter peaceful protesters and Mamdani began his speech by condemning the "vile white supremacy" of the peaceful protesters and their "anti-Muslim bigotry." He never condemned the radical Muslim ideology of the actual attackers. Only that of the victims. Even though the attackers openly said they were pro-ISIS and literally screamed "Allah Akbar!" as they attacked. So what are you even talking about?
In your piece, you wrote: "Mamdani held a press conference to comfort the people of New York, in which he made perfectly clear that such a disgusting attack against New Yorkers would not be tolerated, and in no uncertain terms, he condemned radical Islam. Nah, just kidding. Mamdani condemned white supremacy."
Anyone reading this would come away with the impression that Mamdani did not condemn the attackers. That is false. He made it very clear that sort of violence against New Yorkers would not be tolerated.
There are many parts of this story that could be highlighted, but I'll focus on the "accused" graphic. The media's inconsistent use of "accused" and "allegedly" has been appalling, and it's a generations-long practice. The disfavored are guilty until proven innocent, while the favored are innocent even after proven guilty.
Unfortunately, you are right on all accounts. As loathsome as Jacob Lang is, he was the intended victim (and the poor goat he brought along), the terrorists did not bring the bombs "to the Gracie mansion" but for the protesters outside, and the news outlets failed when put in the uncomfortable fact that Lang was a target, and two young Americans were well... hateful bigots and terrorists. I can only assume in the coming weeks their hateful acts will softened by editorials about "discrimination" and being "marginalized" even these two terrorists come from very affluent families. The ONE real name I want to know is of that brave NYPD officer. Who is he? He deserves a medal!
Spot on. As per usual the NYT, with all the subtly of a mallet to the head, editorializes in the guise of news reporting. It's hard to feel sorry for NYC, they get what they voted for.
And then did Josh Shapiro call Mamdani to commiserate with him as another victim of a hate crime? Really Josh?
What I find surprising is how anyone expected any other reaction. We've been seeing this coming for years now. Who could have expected anything else?
Well written! Touché! And Thank You!
One can almost sympathize with the New York Times for hedging. They’re going to have to live with this for four years and they’re just waking up to it.
But who are articles written such mendaciously for? My suspicion it that it's not merely the public, many of whom are totally aware of the lying going on.
Rather they are written in no small part for the politics and conscious of the reporters themselves attempting to reconcile what they know to be true and what they want to be true.
Mamdani is dirty to the core.
As a “Radicalist,” aren’t you on Mamdani’s side?
Haha no. I call my newsletter the Radicalist because I tend to focus on radical (as in extremist rather than leftist revolutionary) movements and ideologies.
So you are a radicalist to radicals the way an ichthyologist is to fish?
This is a wildly misleading portayal of Mamdani's response to the attempted bombings. He clearly and unambiguously condemned them, and commended the nypd officers who quickly arrested them. You can hear for yourself everything Mr. Volodzko left out of this article:
https://youtu.be/33lTlyI58lo?si=PlL7uyQiohBRngqY
Two radical Muslims carried out an Islamist terrorist attack in an attempt to slaughter peaceful protesters and Mamdani began his speech by condemning the "vile white supremacy" of the peaceful protesters and their "anti-Muslim bigotry." He never condemned the radical Muslim ideology of the actual attackers. Only that of the victims. Even though the attackers openly said they were pro-ISIS and literally screamed "Allah Akbar!" as they attacked. So what are you even talking about?
In your piece, you wrote: "Mamdani held a press conference to comfort the people of New York, in which he made perfectly clear that such a disgusting attack against New Yorkers would not be tolerated, and in no uncertain terms, he condemned radical Islam. Nah, just kidding. Mamdani condemned white supremacy."
Anyone reading this would come away with the impression that Mamdani did not condemn the attackers. That is false. He made it very clear that sort of violence against New Yorkers would not be tolerated.